RefluxSemantic wrote:Cant the community be more communitylike? So that means shutting up and letting a dictator determine the future of the community without letting the community decide. This community patch should be all about the community, which apperantly means nobody should ever complain and that we should have one person make all the decisions. Anyone who disagrees with this is part of a high level clique who want to make the game boring!!!
no it means let's not make this personal when disagreements arise. don't misinterpret why people are upset
edit: I could honestly give 2 fucks about the patch itself as long as I get to play on good maps with a diverse civ pool at my disposal. the real issue, for me, is making sure we don't poison our community over every single disagreement
RefluxSemantic wrote:Cant the community be more communitylike? So that means shutting up and letting a dictator determine the future of the community without letting the community decide. This community patch should be all about the community, which apperantly means nobody should ever complain and that we should have one person make all the decisions. Anyone who disagrees with this is part of a high level clique who want to make the game boring!!!
no it means let's not make this personal when disagreements arise. don't misinterpret why people are upset
edit: I could honestly give 2 fucks about the patch itself as long as I get to play on good maps with a diverse civ pool at my disposal. the real issue, for me, is making sure we don't poison our community over every single disagreement
It is personal though. It became personal when one guy decided to become the dictator.
RefluxSemantic wrote:Cant the community be more communitylike? So that means shutting up and letting a dictator determine the future of the community without letting the community decide. This community patch should be all about the community, which apperantly means nobody should ever complain and that we should have one person make all the decisions. Anyone who disagrees with this is part of a high level clique who want to make the game boring!!!
no it means let's not make this personal when disagreements arise. don't misinterpret why people are upset
edit: I could honestly give 2 fucks about the patch itself as long as I get to play on good maps with a diverse civ pool at my disposal. the real issue, for me, is making sure we don't poison our community over every single disagreement
To be fair, managing the community satisfaction is part of the EP leader job. People shouldn't be toxic and flame on the forums (and we don't do that), but if the community is unhappy and some people are vocal about it, you should blame the EP leader for that.
As we said, Zoi took some big unpopular decisions, and refuses to address some issues/listen to some people.
RefluxSemantic wrote:Cant the community be more communitylike? So that means shutting up and letting a dictator determine the future of the community without letting the community decide. This community patch should be all about the community, which apperantly means nobody should ever complain and that we should have one person make all the decisions. Anyone who disagrees with this is part of a high level clique who want to make the game boring!!!
no it means let's not make this personal when disagreements arise. don't misinterpret why people are upset
edit: I could honestly give 2 fucks about the patch itself as long as I get to play on good maps with a diverse civ pool at my disposal. the real issue, for me, is making sure we don't poison our community over every single disagreement
It is personal though. It became personal when one guy decided to become the dictator.
Does the community get a vote? Is there an actual team with votes? No, it's one guy who has all the power. And that makes it personal, because he's making decisions that wouldn't ever be agreed with by the community.
[Armag] diarouga wrote:
What statement ? We can't balance TP and no TP maps without nerfing TPs to the ground, not sure any decent player disagrees with this at this point.
No, we need to chose between tp or no tp map but we can't balance both.
Who disagrees with this ?
I prefer having both maps with and without Tps rather than nerfing them to the ground. It seems like the logical choice. Different maps, different strategical options, which is good for AOE3.
Its naive to think you can balance for both no TP and TP maps. If you try, you just end up having unbalanced games for both map modes. The team (dictator) should balance around standard maps. The standard map should probably include TPs, because they are and have been a big part of the game.
Nobody is saying that no TP maps shouldnt exist. But honestly, if you actually know how to play the game you realize that no TP makes dont actually have different strategical options. You just have a list of civs that are now not viable anymore.
That actually makes you change civilizations according to the map which in turn, gives you strategic diversity.
I do prefer TP maps though, but that's a personal choice, there should be map diversity to allow different civilizations to be used more or less depending on the map you are playing.
As for personal comments like this one:
"if you actually know how to play this game"
I strongly suggest you mind your own business.
Isnt it much better to actually create civ diversity by balancing the civs themselves?
And sorry if you somehow feel like that comment implies you dont know how to play. But if you dont realize that no TP maps dont actually add new options, then you simply dont understand the game too well. Theres no need to beat around the bushes here.
RefluxSemantic wrote:Isnt it much better to actually create civ diversity by balancing the civs themselves?
And sorry if you somehow feel like that comment implies you dont know how to play. But if you dont realize that no TP maps dont actually add new options, then you simply dont understand the game too well. Theres no need to beat around the bushes here.
Insolent! If you do not think like I do you could just explain it with logical arguments instead of appealing to a fallacy.
So if you actually play the game, you know that some civs dont need or even want TPs. If you remove TPs these civs will be unharmed. That means there arent actually more options, it just means that all civs that do want a TP are now weaker. No TP maps have always been about civs like Japan/India/Dutch/Brit/Russia, and thats just more boring than maps where all 14 civs are viable.
If you really think no TP maps give more options, you apperantly dont know how important TPs are to some civs and how irrelevant they are to others. If you dont know that, I dont think you should be arguing for or against no TP maps.
Balance aside, I find it to be hilarious that people make arguments like, Sioux isn’t meant to be an eco civ, and then also make arguments that no-TP maps should be removed
n0el wrote:Balance aside, I find it to be hilarious that people make arguments like, Sioux isn’t meant to be an eco civ, and then also make arguments that no-TP maps should be removed
I dont think anyone wants no-TP maps removed though
RefluxSemantic wrote:So if you actually play the game, you know that some civs dont need or even want TPs. If you remove TPs these civs will be unharmed. That means there arent actually more options, it just means that all civs that do want a TP are now weaker. No TP maps have always been about civs like Japan/India/Dutch/Brit/Russia, and thats just more boring than maps where all 14 civs are viable.
If you really think no TP maps give more options, you apperantly dont know how important TPs are to some civs and how irrelevant they are to others. If you dont know that, I dont think you should be arguing for or against no TP maps.
You assume things about myself that are wrong. You are just intolerant against anyone that does not share your views.
I disagree with you, having both TP and no TP maps helps with civilization diversity. As you pointed out, some may thrive on no TP maps while others may do so on TP maps. Boring or not is subjective. A piece of advice, stop being insolent and try to be respectful.
Isnt part of the problem that the map design atm operates on a somewhat narrow framework of tp vs no tp?
Like I can count 3 no-tp water map in the pool with all the maps being relatively the same size.
If we agree that Tps are too important to too many civs and nerfing it directly would be too harmful, then we need to atleast look at how we can balance it through the maps themselves.I dont mind if we only see a select number of civ appears on every map but if the meta of the map is dynamic and there is enough map differences that different civs and different civ strats are neccesarily viable on different maps than I think things are fine. Like China may have alternate options rather than Tps but are there maps that allow for those options?
In addition, often in the maps with all the options (water, Natives, Tps) people dont go for those and often just go for TPs, tbh I dont know if that is just a problem with maps or with players but that has always felt like a problem that needs adressing, because most of the time games ended up feeling the same on maps that are supposed to be different.
Some simple maths will explain why tps are so good
1 vill - 100 res, requires a resource source
1 fishing boat, currently 70 res PLUS dock cost. Must be defended using expensive wood units that are not a part of your main army and are only situationally useful on most maps (manchuria for example)
1 tp - 200 res - 4vills worth of res after stagecoach. Can be cheapened significantly and pays for itself nearly immediately due to resource value of colonial shipments. Limitless source of res and defended using your main army.
I think you should take a look at my maps thread if you're interested, i have some very unusual water maps @helln00
helln00 wrote:Isnt part of the problem that the map design atm operates on a somewhat narrow framework of tp vs no tp?
Like I can count 3 no-tp water map in the pool with all the maps being relatively the same size.
If we agree that Tps are too important to too many civs and nerfing it directly would be too harmful, then we need to atleast look at how we can balance it through the maps themselves.I dont mind if we only see a select number of civ appears on every map but if the meta of the map is dynamic and there is enough map differences that different civs and different civ strats are neccesarily viable on different maps than I think things are fine. Like China may have alternate options rather than Tps but are there maps that allow for those options?
In addition, often in the maps with all the options (water, Natives, Tps) people dont go for those and often just go for TPs, tbh I dont know if that is just a problem with maps or with players but that has always felt like a problem that needs adressing, because most of the time games ended up feeling the same on maps that are supposed to be different.
Players are part of the problem, but to be fair, TP>water most of the time.
Idk about balance but just taking it from a sports perspective in a tournament, it doesn't matter if you call all the changes "bugfixes", you don't change the patch in the middle of the tournament. Now the first week was playing with different patch (bugs or not) than the last week. Someone taking the time to do all these updates and bugfixes is great but here it was just wrong timing-wise and it's unfortunate that you defend that here.
Why have TPs not been nerfed?
It seems for a lot of civs that getting a tp or not is not a question as it's clearly worse not getting one. If the game is balanced around it, why don't we just give every player a tp to start off with? The decision to not get a tp is not one you can make anyway.
chris1089 wrote:Why have TPs not been nerfed?
It seems for a lot of civs that getting a tp or not is not a question as it's clearly worse not getting one. If the game is balanced around it, why don't we just give every player a tp to start off with? The decision to not get a tp is not one you can make anyway.
Because the decision when to get a TP and how many you get does matter.
RefluxSemantic wrote:So if you actually play the game, you know that some civs dont need or even want TPs. If you remove TPs these civs will be unharmed. That means there arent actually more options, it just means that all civs that do want a TP are now weaker. No TP maps have always been about civs like Japan/India/Dutch/Brit/Russia, and thats just more boring than maps where all 14 civs are viable.
If you really think no TP maps give more options, you apperantly dont know how important TPs are to some civs and how irrelevant they are to others. If you dont know that, I dont think you should be arguing for or against no TP maps.
You assume things about myself that are wrong. You are just intolerant against anyone that does not share your views.
I disagree with you, having both TP and no TP maps helps with civilization diversity. As you pointed out, some may thrive on no TP maps while others may do so on TP maps. Boring or not is subjective. A piece of advice, stop being insolent and try to be respectful.
On TP maps every civ is playable and viable. At this point in time civ diversity in non-tournament games comes from player preference. On no TP maps the game is exactly the same, but otto/germany/france/spain/iro/aztec/ports/sioux/china are now all much weaker, so we end up playing brits/dutch/russia/india all the time. Its not really that interesting.
It then makes no sense to make no TP maps a balance consideration. It will only hurt the balance on normal maps if you do so. There are some good examples of this: nat tps giving an xp trickle and otto mosque making them probably too strong. Right now, the fact that we have been considering no TP maps in balancing has led to less diversity. It is one of the main causes of the current atp/otto meta.
This doesnt mean no TP maps shouldnt exist. They might be fun if you are biased and want to see dutch/russia/brit/india all the time. For tournament games it is okay, but for normal 1v1s (this is how we all end up playing the game) no TP maps are just shit. Its basically the same game but now the civs are horribly balanced. You might as well play RE then.
chris1089 wrote:Why are TPs not nerfed so that getting 0 TPs is actually an option?
Why is this desirable?
It makes no sense to make huge changes to the game just so no TP maps (maps with less options and build orders) are viable. At that point, the problem isnt that TPs are too strong, the problem is that no-TP maps are bad.
n0el wrote:Balance aside, I find it to be hilarious that people make arguments like, Sioux isn’t meant to be an eco civ, and then also make arguments that no-TP maps should be removed
I think they argue that tp maps should have less tps. Besides sioux shouldnt be able to camp in base with the teepee bison combo and just sit and mass. I just cant believe how passive some sioux players are and find it ridiculous that they dont even need to abuse their 10 speed cav to damage their opponents eco. Doesn’t even need to kill vills just idle. Thats siouxs “eco bonus” reducing opponents and no need to gather wood for houses. 5v and great hunter are good enough eco buffs.